St. Peter’s Altarpiece

We see them every Sunday as they dominate the chancel wall. Tablets on the east wall dominated many older colonial churches before the Revolution. They were not an ornamental decoration but part of fulfilling of church law. 

Canon Law LXXXII of 1604, the Church of England had required "the Ten Commandments be set up on the East end of every Church and Chapel, where the people may best see and read the same, and other chosen sentences written upon the walls of the said Churches and Chapels, in places convenient."

As was common in other parish churches in the colony, Christ Church, Lancaster’s altarpiece contained the Decalogue as well as the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed. Two other items were required – the communion table shall be provided with a decent covering and “a convenient seat be made for the minister to read service in”

After the disestablishment of the Episcopal church, this requirement was dropped.

St. Peter’s tablets were added after the Dec. 26, 1849 burning of the church. There is a mention that the church was in “ruins”.   It destroyed the interior of St. Peter’s Church as well as the  steeple, organ and bell. Even the brick structure suffered great damage.

The 1850’s church went through a “remodeling” with a new bell and organ. In that context the tablets appeared. There is no mention of them in the Vestry minutes and no evidence of earlier tablets they may have replaced. Fall reports they were place there in 1853 which he cited from the Journals of the Diocese and the Account Books of Philip Lightfoot (1784-1865).

Some have speculated they may have been a part of Mount Church. This is probably not the case. This church was about 10 miles from St. Peter’s in Rappahannock Academy. It was abandoned as a church after 1806 with the last pastor. The building was still impressive in 1838 according to Bishop Meade including Ralph Fall’s history of Port Royal. The building had been converted to a "seminary of learning". It is plausible that they could have been taken from the church since not being used as such.

The long "S" would probably have been a part of Mount Church’s tablets in their lettering. They are not there in St. Peter’s. The tablets are mounted in a gothic shape which would not have been the case. Colonial tablets are rectangular. St. Peter’s tablets do not resemble those of other colonial churches. There are no descriptions of Mount Church’s tablet found.  

We still don’t know why they were added to St. Peter’s. What is clear is that they are unique among Virginia churches.

We don’t know how many other 19th century Episcopal churches had these but we have evidence of  at least one.  St. Paul’s Church in Mt. Vernon NY is a historical site under the National Park Service does have tablets. Tablets were added there in 1848. Apparently the Church of England had to contend with remnants of the Puritan tradition that would have no ornaments in churches such as tablets even if they had Biblical text. The opposition died down in the 19th century. An article in 2012 stated “As a regular parish within the diocese of New York, St. Paul’s was expected to display the religious messages inscribed in the tablets, and in the development of the church, plain wooden boards were no longer seen as idolatrous. . Additionally, it’s likely the bare white walls of the sanctuary, lacking religious symbolism, failed to satisfy the spiritual expectations of the congregants. The church was a special place, not simply a meetinghouse, and some visual expression of that sentiment was warranted. “

These tablets are closer in style to ours with gold leaf inscriptions illuminating the black tablets.  The style would have to be described as more folk art.

Our tablets may have been added for the same reason – the walls were bare. These three documents provide a common bond between all parishioners. Bishop Meade’s theological environment provided the right atmosphere for placing emphasis on these documents.  He redirected the Diocese to a stricter moral code which allowed for disciplining those for  attendance at horse racing and theatre, public balls or those who failed attend worship. 

What is unique about the St. Peter’s in any era is the central IHS panel in the middle. In many colonial churches the four panels were put together. Another alternative arrangement is two panels together in the center and the other to the side.

W. Brown Morton III, a Historic Preservation Consultant, was brought in during 2002   "to examine the mural paintings and text panels behind the altar and to give you my advice on the conservation of these important features in the church."  He wrote the following:

"I believe that the black and gold text panels and surrounding frames have largely retained  their original paint and lettering. There are some clear areas of paint loss. However, these losses are fairly minor and do not interrupt or obliterate the text. It is my recommendation that these panels be conserved and consolidated as they are, with in-painting of the losses only. I do not recommend wholesale cleaning of these panels. I do not recommend re-painting or over-painting of these panels. I believe they have considerable integrity as they are and should be conserved as much’“as-is” as possible.

I believe that the central “I.HS.” panel is later in date than the text panels, but none-theless of significant value to the historic appearance of the church interior. The background of this panel appears to have been very crudely over-painted in the not-too-distant past with a black/brown layer of paint that is clearly not the black of the original panel background. This same black/brown over-painting has been applied to several other “blank” Gothic Revival panels surrounding the “I.H.S.” panel. It is my recommendation that testing be done to see if any earlier decoration of any significance survives underneath the “I.H.S.” panel.

Morton recommended “a search be made of early photographs of the church interior and of the vestry minutes and of peoples’ memory to determine when the “I.H.S.” panel was inserted.” Pictures in 1971, 1983, 1991, 1996 all contain the same IHS panel. The photographs are not detailed enough for zooming into the photo.

It appears the deterioration may have been a part of the 1980’s tablets after reviewing these photographs.Over time there are no mentions of work done to the tablets. This may change this year with the bringing in of a consultant from Richmond in September, 2014.  Part II of this document will go into the results of her examination.

Leave a Comment